June 25, 2012 issue
Doctrine, not dialogue
By Larry Toner Bledsoe, Ky.In “Why I Officiated a Same-Sex Ceremony” (May 28), Joanna Harader mentions the need for premarital counseling “to see if this will work.” The Apostle Paul gives specific information about the marriage relationship in Eph. 5:21-33. I’d like to know how she whittled that peg down to make it fit. Maybe the larger question isn’t about homosexuality at all. Maybe it has to do with biblical truth: What was God saying before cultural correctness became popular? Biblical truth always trumps human wisdom. It’s about what God says, not how we want to interpret it (2 Peter 1:20-21). It’s time to stop standing around like Pilate asking, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) and muster up the courage to challenge error. God help us if we allow “dialogue” to replace sound doctrine in confronting sin.
Comments
-
If only Biblical interpretation were so simple and easy. Yet there is a great deal more complexity to it. Dialogue around the scriptures in community has always been part of how the Spirit guides. We really don't have to fear this.
-
But Biblical interpretation is simple and sometimes easy, for the most part. We can know what the original writers intended their original hearers to understand, and we can know how they understood it if we are willing to put in the effort. It would seem the issue is not understanding interpretation but being willing to obey accurate and correct interpretation. The Spirit guides in the truth of the inspired and inerrant Scripture. It would seem the dialogue should be about how to obey and apply God's revealed truth. John 17:17
-
If we all interpreted the Bible the same way, we'd all still be Roman Catholic and certainly not Anabaptist, willing to die for reading hte Word with radical inspiration of our forefathers.
-
I'm not sure why anybody would want to consult Paul for advice on marriage. He was never married himself. In fact he advised against it. He preferred everyone remain single like himself. He didn't have a great attitude towards women. And some scholars speculate that his "thorn in the flesh" may have been connected to guilt around his sexual identity. The man was a mess. Obviously, to me, human wisdom (using the brains God gave us) is a far superior source of counsel when it comes to relationship issues in today's world.
-
What is fun about serious and responsible Bible study is discovering there is so much more there than at first thought. Paul is so cool about women. It is not difficult to discover that his counsel against marriage was not because he was against it, but because of the persecution at the time. Reading in context, especially in Ephesians 5, one discovers God's heart and purpose for marriage. Thank you Paul! Since what he wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit, God must have meant for us to understand marriage from His perspective. Responsible study will reveal Paul had no problem with his sexual identity and counseled those who did in Romans 1. If one does not hold to inerrancy of Scripture then interpretation is up for grabs and becomes whatever best fits one's already determined philosophy. We are all a mess apart from the redemption found only in Christ's sacrificial death in our place. Eph 2:1-10.
-
Rick makes some really good points here about reorienting our view of Paul based on serious and responsible Bible study. There really is more there than is often seen initially because we need to take the time to interpret letters written almost 2000 years ago. When we take the time to do that, we realize that it's less about the inerrancy of the Bible and more about the Bible's authority in our lives as the testimony of God for the People of God. This doesn't mean that interpretation puts everything up for grabs but rather that it helps us reorient ourselves to the original message, context, and meaning behind the (translated/interpreted) words we read.
-
May I point out that it was human wisdon that led to what books were included in our canon of scripture? May I point out that the early church, in the scriptures they chose to include,made sure that we knew that Jesus hung with those his society considered to be sinners or outcasts or the despised? Who are we to decide who is respectable and who is not? The early church, through the canon they chose, obviously thought that love of neighbour was more important that how others place people into a social strata, such as gay, lesbian, intersex, or transgender. So, Biblical truth IS human wisdom, as it took human wisdom to decide on what books to include in our canon of scripture. This is why we interpret scripture, and why scripture should not intrepret us.To do so would place a ton of guilt on our shoulers with little desire to be part of church.The 'love of neighbour' wisdom of the early church will always trump doctrine. Doctrine should always be seen as a guide because it is inflexible, where as society and all humans must always be flexible because they grow and develop - they are never static because they learn as they live. You can never have the fullness of life if you are entirely imprisoned in doctrine.
-
Here it is again with spelling corections
May I point out that it was human wisdon that led to what books were included in our canon of scripture? May I point out that the early church, in the scriptures they chose to include, made sure that we knew that Jesus hung with those his society considered to be sinners or outcasts or the despised? Who are we to decide who is respectable and who is not? The early church, through the canon they chose, obviously thought that love of neighbour was more important than how others place people into a social strata, such as gay, lesbian, intersex, or transgender. So, Biblical truth IS human wisdom, as it took human wisdom to decide on what books to include in our canon of scripture. This is why we interpret scripture, and why scripture should not interpret us.To do so would place a ton of guilt on our shoulders with little desire to be part of church.The 'love of neighbour' wisdom of the early church will always trump doctrine. Doctrine should always be seen only as a guide because it is inflexible, where as society and all humans must always be flexible because they grow and develop - they are never static because they learn as they live. You can never have the fullness of life if you are entirely imprisoned in doctrine".
-
Thank you Larry for your comments.
There are many people who read the Bible to search for truth, as God revealed it through his ordained writers. Likewise, there are many other people who will accept and reject Bible teaching that fits or doesn’t fit their own personal feelings and theology.
The Bible we have today consists of a library of 66 books, written by about 40 different men over a period of about 1500 years. These books were not haphazardly written by any of the authors from memory nor do I believe they kept any daily journals. For example, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses, a man ordained by God to write. According to my Mennonite sources, creation as recorded in Gen 1 occurred about 1700 BC, however Moses wrote Genesis about 1280-1240 BC. Therefore he was not present during the creation and fall of man which occurred about 450 years earlier. Conclusion, Moses obediently wrote what God inspired him to write in each of the five books. I am guessing Moses was thoroughly amazed at what he was writing.
Fast forward to writings of Apostle Paul. I believe in all his writings and ministry, he was filled with the Holy Spirit, however I do not think he knew that what he was writing would eventually become books of the Bible we have today. It is quite likely that he wrote other letters that passed God’s sniff test, however God chose not to include them. In His wisdom, God chose to have the Bible consist of these 66 books and not 166. Many people struggle with the 66 books.
It was a sovereign God who orchestrated the final phase through Spirit filled men who eventually determined what the 66 books of the Bible would be. God has been directly involved in developing the Bible as we know it today. Satan has made many efforts to destroy the Bible but God continues to have his protecting hand on it. Again, I think God revealed to these Godly men when their job was complete and the Bible, with the 66 books should begin to be distributed.
The availability of the Bible for many people took a giant leap forward when King James of England authorized the translation of the Bible in the language of the English speaking people in the early 1600’s. God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. When Abraham’s wife Sarah expressed doubts of her being promised a son in her old age, she was told is anything to hard for the Lord.
Christians do not worship the Bible, but do have a reverent respect for it as the word to mankind from a holy and righteous God. Only to the believer and a true seeker does this Word of God have special power and meaning, in that it is quick and powerful and sharper than a two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Further, the Bible commands the believer to study thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
Thanks for your post Dale, very interesting and a view which I have heard before. Can you explain to me then, why the Roman Catholic Bible and the Protestant versions of the Bible differ? Or why the versions of the Bible of the Eastern church are quite varied? Obviously, different espects of the church have decided which Books of the Bible are inspired by God and which are not.
-
Just another quick thought. The Roman Catholic canon was used up to the time of the reformation, with the Apocrypha being used as it siuted. Did God change His mind after 1500 years? With the use of the Apocrypha being flexible. So, as is the case with the canon of the Bible, so should be the case with Doctrine - flexible. Scripture, in my view, is theology written down in the context of the cultural and the 'political correctness' of the time in which it was written. When I read God's Word I keep this in mind while gaining great insight into the nature of humanity. I have come across a lot of conservative Christians who use the exact same version the Bible, and use the exact same 'Doctrines of the Bible'( Kauffman) and come up with a different theology and practise.So an appeal to Doctrine and Bible does not settle anything. I still refer to the KJV and the Doctrines of the Bible, but I look around me and see the realities of my culture and the times in which I live, and then I decide what to accept and reject. If I have to compromise in order to help someone in need - then I will.
-
Erika, I am not familiar with the Catholic Bible, therefore I am not in position to respond to your question. Since you appear to be familiar with the Catholic and KJV, what differences have you observed as it pertains to church doctrine?
-
Hi Dale, Basically, what I have observed is that the writings of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible are scattered amongst the Old Testament Canon, and are regarded as equal and have as much weight as all the other scriptures that we use. Catholics therefore see these as what God wants us to know and as equally God inspired and authorized for the teaching of His people. Some Eastern Churches have fewer Scriptures in their Canons than what we have, leaving out some books from the Old and New Testament Canons altogether. I would have to review my previous searches to tell you which books they regard as God inspired, and those which they rejected and which aspects of the global church they belong to. I read the KJV as I was taught from childhood, If Moses or others did this, or did that, they truly did, and that is how I read the rest of scripture. However, I try to keep things in their cultural perspective otherwise I would go nuts trying figure out why certain practises as outlined in the Bible are now no longer observed. For example Paul, I think it was, commanded women to be quiet in the congregation – hardly something I would endorse today. My catch cry is that I am as conservative as I want to be and as progressive as I need to be, and being me, I have to be progressive, but not to the extent of ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’, so to speak. If a suicidal member of my transsexual community needed comapny and wanted to go to the cinema, I have no problems going to the cinema with them. I still read the Creation magazine, Doctrines of the Bible, and other conservative Anabaptist publications, as well as the Companion newsletter, but I am also an advocate for my transsexual community. I guess I am something for everyone to hate/reject/despise. Then again, these are the types of people that Jesus hung out with, as I do. Thats why I interpret the Bible, I don't let it interpret me. Because God does not make mistakes and He made me a transsexual/intersex.
-
Erika, I am interested in continuing this discussion with you but not through MWR, therefore I am authorizing Sheldon to share my email address with you.
-
Ms. Fels is correct. The more historical number of books of the Bible is 73. Or 76 if you are Orthodox. Or various other numbers if you are Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, or Ethiopian Orthodox. These Apocrypha texts exist in the Septuagint. There is not “one” Apocrypha, but there are actually lists of Apocrypha that go far beyond what we are normally aware of. The “Catholic Apocrypha” (includes 1,2 Maccabees) is just a subset of another larger Apocrypha (includes, 1,2,3,4 Maccabees). Which in turn is a subset of a large Jewish Apocrypha which has whole texts, as well as bits and pieces of texts tacked onto existing texts. For example a chunk of text stuck onto the end of “Bel and the Dragon.” Jewish Bibles don’t contain these texts, but Jews know about them. (5 Maccabees is discarded by everyone). Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are important resources for the NT. CV omits some theological phrases, like “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you”, and “And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” Now, there are Aramaic texts called targumim. A targum is important in Judaism, may contain the OT, and also paraphrases of the OT. Some targumim predate the mishna, and help explain the Bible to Jews. Jews know about 1,2,3,4 Maccabees but consider only 1 Maccabees as historical. There’s an Ethiopian Orthodox canon that includes Enoch, Jubilees, 1-3 Meqabyan and the rest of Baruch. The Catholic “New American Bible” places some of these apocryphal texts on the end of existing books (e.g., Susanna is attached to the end of Daniel.) But in the “New English Bible” these texts stand alone. And the “New English Bible” contains a Psalm 151. Apocrypha is sometimes called “deuterocanonical.” There is overlap between the words “Apocrypha” and “apocryphal.” Books in the Apocrypha have or have been considered sacred, even the obscure ones. Apocryphal books include the ones in the Apocrypha, but also those not considered to be of much worth depending on whose viewpoint you are taking. There is overlap between the word “apocryphal” and “pseudepigraphal”. (Yes, the word is spelled correctly.) Apocryphal books are or have been considered sacred by the Jews at one time or another, but all books in the pseudepigrapha are considered by Christians to be worthless, and some books in the pseudepigrapha are considered by Jews to be worthless. Due to the tension between Catholics and Protestants, the current Protestant canon is sometimes referred to as “protocanonical.” There is Jewish canon, Latin canon, and Greek canon. Currently, there’s about a dozen OT canons. Very roughly, Protestant: 39 books, Catholic: 46 books, Orthodox: 49 or maybe 53 books. In 1546 the Catholic church convened the famous Council of Trent and definitively affirmed that the deuterocanonical books were included in the canon. In 1562 the Church of England convened and produced their famous “Thirty Nine Articles which definitively affirmed that the deuterocanonical books were not included in the canon. (Actually, these councils spanned many years). And that is where we are today, at least in the West. There are no differences in the present New Testament Canon. And Protestants can feel good that their OT has essentially the same content as the Hebrew Bible. But there were different NT canons up until recently. Martin Luther only reluctantly inserted the Apocrypha into the Bible, and looked very skeptically at four books of the NT.
Comment on the article Doctrine, not dialogue
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download